Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1575 (MP)

Baljeet Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-12-02

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (for short MPLRC). By the impugned order the Board of Revenue has confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior dated 29/11/2011 confirming the order dated 7/7/2010 passed by the Collector in its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the MPLRC. 3. The Collector invoked his suo motu revisional power on a report submitted by the Sub Division Officer dated 1/9/2009 wherein on detailed enquiry it was found that revenue authorities have passed settlement orders in number of cases illegally and contrary to the provisions of MPLRC and rules made thereunder. One of such case was case No. 23/2004-2005/A-19; wherein, the Nayab Tahsildar , Tahsil Bhitarwar had resorted the same modus operandi in passing the order for settlement dated 28/6/2005 in respect of land survey No. 3 min rakwa 3.658 hectare and survey No. 3 min rakwa 0.523 hectare situated at village Mehgaon, Gwalior, contrary to the rules in a personalized manner in favour of petitioners. The said case is subject matter of suo motu revision in the instant case. Notices were issues and non-applicant namely Kamaljeet Sigh, Jagjeet Singh and Govind Singh despite having been served with notices remained ex parte whereas one of them namely Baljeet Singh was represented by counsel Shri Jagdish Shrivastava. After hearing the counsel for the non-applicant, the Collector had examined the entire record and found that the aforesaid land was settled in favour of non-applicants in the year 1999-2000; however, same land could not have been settled being a service land. Besides it is found that there is number of cuttings and overwriting in the order sheet dated 28/6/2005 prepared and signed by the Nayab Tahsildar. There were number of irregularities committed in passing the aforesaid order of settlement viz. there was no paper publication. That apart, it was also found that non-applicants have failed to bring on record the documents to establish that the land in question in respect whereof the settlement was ordered in their favour were in possession of the same for last 20-25 years. there was no paper publication. That apart, it was also found that non-applicants have failed to bring on record the documents to establish that the land in question in respect whereof the settlement was ordered in their favour were in possession of the same for last 20-25 years. Even no document is on record to show that they had encroached upon the same land for which they were subjected to find etc. On critical evaluation of the documentary evidence on record, it was found that only for one year i.e. 2003-04, the non-applicants were shown to be in possession thereof. The Collector has observed that as a matter of fact, the proceedings under Section 248 of MPLRC ought to have to be initiated for dispossession of the non-applicants but that has not been done. Before passing of the order of settlement dated 28/6/2005, the concerned authorities were obliged to hold a spot inspection, that was also not done. With the aforesaid serious lapses on the part of revenue officers and the fact that service land was settled in favour of non- applicants unauthorisedly and illegally, the said act was found to be contrary to the provisions of MPLRC as well as rules framed thereunder and other departmental circulars. The Collector has also taken into consideration the circular dated 21/1/2003 numbered as F-30-18/2002/Saat/2-A; wherein, the Government has issued directions that till formulation and finalization of the policy of the State Government, the Charnoi land being used now for agricultural purposes, should be kept in abeyance in accordance with the orders passed by Hon. Supreme Court. As such keeping in mind the grave illegality committed by the Nayab Tahsildar while passing the settlement order dated 28/6/2005 and the direction issued by the State Government and that of Hon. Supreme Court, the aforesaid order was set aside. The aforesaid order also withstood the judicial scrutiny before the Additional Commissioner, and appeal was dismissed on 29/11/2011. The appellate Court has again considered the entire matter on merits and found that no illegality was committed by the Collector while setting aside the order dated 28/6/2005. The Board of Revenue has also endorsed and confirmed the order passed by the authority. 4. The appellate Court has again considered the entire matter on merits and found that no illegality was committed by the Collector while setting aside the order dated 28/6/2005. The Board of Revenue has also endorsed and confirmed the order passed by the authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to criticize the aforesaid orders by taking a plea that the revisional jurisdiction could not be invoked after four years of passing of orders for settlement and according to him on this score only, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to prick holes in the orders passed by the authorities. 5. There is no limitation prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the MPLRC. Incorporation of Section 50 in MPLRC with the provisions of suo motu revision conferred upon the Collector is with the intention to ensure that revenue authorities perform their duties within the bound of the provisions of MPLRC and do not pass any order contrary to the rules and prejudicial to the interest of State. In fact the aforesaid jurisdiction is that of superintendence in nature to ensure execution of various provisions of the Act to the agricultural lands within the territory of State of M.P. by revenue authorities and in accordance with law. There are inbuilt limitations upon the powers under Section 50 of the MPLRC in conformity with powers of judicial review. 6. In the context of case in hand, the Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 28/6/2005 has settled the service land which is patently illegal and the fact in that behalf was brought to his notice on detailed enquiry report furnished by SDO dated 1/9/2009. This by itself was sufficient material which provides for full justification for review of the order of the Nayab Tahsildar dated 28/6/2005 under suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Service land was made subject matter of settlement order. Apart from this in appeal the Additional Commissioner has found that there is no khasra entries produced by the petitioners to prove that they are in possession of the land in question for last 20-25 years. Further no date has been mentioned on the application submitted by them before the Court. That apart in the application it has been been mentioned that for which land and how much land they have prayed for settlement. Further no date has been mentioned on the application submitted by them before the Court. That apart in the application it has been been mentioned that for which land and how much land they have prayed for settlement. They have also not mentioned that how much cases of encroachment are pending against them and when they have deposited the fine and how many times they have deposited the fine. Further they have failed to produce the copy of accounts and aksh. Apart from these various other irregularities have already been detailed I previous paragraphs. Hence, no illegality is found in the orders passed by the authorities below. There is no error much less jurisdictional error committed by authorities below in exercise of powers of superintendence. No interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the impugned orders, the petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed.